Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[tehdang]

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected separate requests from Republicans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to block the use of new congressional maps adopted by state courts for the 2022 election cycle, allowing the court-drawn voting lines to stay in place.

That's interesting. That will definitely benefit Democrats.

Yep. Beneficial to Dems.

The case itself will continue on decision and appeal for quite some time further. This is just on an injunction. Alabama’s court decision on redistricting was stayed by scotus not too long ago, to the benefit of republicans, and that case is winding its way up too.

[Fugus]

Technically they just kicked the can down the road because it's too close to the election; they expressed that they do intend to take up the core issue at a later date.

Of course, more like they are waiting for their current issues to die down I guess. But just having a single election actually be representative will be a huge plus. But of course we can't get any principle or ethics out of those people, like getting blood from a stone.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. Beneficial to Dems.

The case itself will continue on decision and appeal for quite some time further. This is just on an injunction. Alabama’s court decision on redistricting was stayed by scotus not too long ago, to the benefit of republicans, and that case is winding its way up too.

Yeah, we already know you believe the losers in the election should get full control so long as they believe what you want them to. Democracy is a sin in your eyes which is why you dislike an impartial districting process.

Typically ignore you but honestly, no point in it since no one does and the moderation allows it.

So, here is your pigeon food.

[Endus]

Biden to order studies on regulating, issuing cryptocurrency

So...I don't crypto. At all. But I get the impression this has something to do with other countries doing the same, because a currency not attached to a specific govt is viewed as a dangerous thing by governments.

Could I get someone who knows what the hell they're talking about to weigh in? Because it's not me.

In addition to the above points, one bit that gets overlooked is precisely how much of a pyramid scheme cryptocurrencies are. The people who got in early on Bitcoin own, like, 95% of Bitcoin. There's a massive push to get people to use it and see it as a "real" currency and so forth not just for illegal transactions, but because without that kind of market engagement, those early adopters' stash loses value. It's essentially a pump-and-dump scam on top of everything else. The Folding Ideas vid gets into this, since this is also where NFTs enter the field (another means of pumping), but the core of it is unless you already own millions of real dollars in Bitcoin, you're a sucker who's being exploited by those millionaires and you're too dense to realize it.

And if you're trying to get into a newer cryptocurrency because you've recognized that, it just means you want to be one of those exploiters, yourself.

Crypto bros aren't the worst business owners in the world, but only because oil magnates are still so much worse.

[tehdang]

=Yeah, we already know you believe the losers in the election should get full control so long as they believe what you want them to. Democracy is a sin in your eyes which is why you dislike an impartial districting process.

Typically ignore you but honestly, no point in it since no one does and the moderation allows it.

So, here is your pigeon food.

I believe the power of redistricting should remain in the legislature. It's for the point that alternative plans, like in New York and California, produce the same gerrymandered results by other means.

Now, looking at your opinion. Democracy is best served by the people's representatives in the state being denied. You claim to like impartiality, but cheer when judges write districts so ... I'd say you're no friend to democracy or impartiality. So, I'm going to keep calling out "it's only Democracy when we win" type Democratic talking points, and enjoy watching Democrats pick up House seats in gerrymandering gains while claiming that it's all the Republican's fault.

Typically ignore you but honestly, no point in it since no one does and the moderation allows it.

Thanks for the shout out. I typically respond until people go too far off topic, or too far in repeating the same point acting like something's different. Also, sometimes the thread moves on to other topics before I can respond. And in a minority of cases, some posters like to start with the racist and white supremacist accusations, and then act like they want a return to serious debate.

Thanks for the injection of "gerrymandering is bad when Republicans do it, but good and forced when Democrats do it" perspective. I'd rather have someone that believes it, at some level at least, than being forced to imagine if you guys still think Democracy is served when judges do the business instead of legislatures.

[TACOshake]

So how does /Politics Scoring System work?

Was this a "Win" for the Pigeons or the Pigeon Feeders?


Personally I like the irony of self-owns. Its like the pinnacle of shitposts.

/s

[DarkTZeratul]

I believe the power of redistricting should remain in the legislature. It's for the point that alternative plans, like in New York and California, produce the same gerrymandered results by other means.

Now, looking at your opinion. Democracy is best served by the people's representatives in the state being denied. You claim to like impartiality, but cheer when judges write districts so ... I'd say you're no friend to democracy or impartiality. So, I'm going to keep calling out "it's only Democracy when we win" type Democratic talking points, and enjoy watching Democrats pick up House seats in gerrymandering gains while claiming that it's all the Republican's fault.

That's a lot of words to say you like it better when Republicans are allowed to intentionally create partisan districts in order to maximize their own gains rather than impartially-created districts generated by neutral third parties or algorithms.

[Fugus]

I believe the power of redistricting should remain in the legislature. It's for the point that alternative plans, like in New York and California, produce the same gerrymandered results by other means.

Now, looking at your opinion. Democracy is best served by the people's representatives in the state being denied. You claim to like impartiality, but cheer when judges write districts so ... I'd say you're no friend to democracy or impartiality. So, I'm going to keep calling out "it's only Democracy when we win" type Democratic talking points, and enjoy watching Democrats pick up House seats in gerrymandering gains while claiming that it's all the Republican's fault.

Thanks for the shout out. I typically respond until people go too far off topic, or too far in repeating the same point acting like something's different. Also, sometimes the thread moves on to other topics before I can respond. And in a minority of cases, some posters like to start with the racist and white supremacist accusations, and then act like they want a return to serious debate.

Thanks for the injection of "gerrymandering is bad when Republicans do it, but good and forced when Democrats do it" perspective. I'd rather have someone that believes it, at some level at least, than being forced to imagine if you guys still think Democracy is served when judges do the business instead of legislatures.

And thank you for proving my point about you, intentionally being disingenuous. I support banning gerrymandering from ALL parties and requiring neutral and nonpartisan districts. You believe in selective enforcement until it gets what you want.

Edit: And the sad thing on these forums is it appears decorum is more important than facts and honesty. Can be a complete lying muderous monster so long as you don't get too impolite while doing it. But an honest asshole risks getting in trouble.

[tehdang]

That's a lot of words to say you like it better when Republicans are allowed to intentionally create partisan districts in order to maximize their own gains rather than impartially-created districts generated by neutral third parties or algorithms.

Since when are Democrats prevented from doing the same? They do the same AND are benefitted this cycle in places like New York and California. At your level, you're affirming that you only dislike it when Republicans do it. You neither mention nor touch the expected D gains from gerrymandering.

And thank you for proving my point about you, intentionally being disingenuous. I support banning gerrymandering from ALL parties and requiring neutral and nonpartisan districts. You believe in selective enforcement until it gets what you want.

Edit: And the sad thing on these forums is it appears decorum is more important than facts and honesty. Can be a complete lying muderous monster so long as you don't get too impolite while doing it. But an honest asshole risks getting in trouble.

I'll give you the opportunity to condemn both Republicans and Democrats for gerrymandering. Each time I give this opportunity, the nonpartisan drape falls off and the truth gives way.

This might come as some shock to you, but disagreements over policy and practical applications are not disingenuous by default. I think the evidence shows that there is no fair judge of neutral and nonpartisan districts, and it just becomes gerrymandering by closeted means. You can repeat the trolly disingenuous accusations all you want, but what remains is states deciding and the party in power making that choice. Well, with the exception of court interventions that are in dire need to leave the drawing to the legislatures. I support both Democrat and Republican-controlled legislatures drawing their districts as their elected representatives agree upon. The disingenuity is all on you, and I give you the first opportunity to condemn both sides, just as I support both parties doing it (if only the rhetoric matched their actions).

[Edge-]

I think the evidence shows that there is no fair judge of neutral and nonpartisan districts, and it just becomes gerrymandering by closeted means.

This is the same argument as the, "We shouldn't pass this common sense law because criminals will just ignore it!" argument.

That you don't even seem to want to try to improve the system, in favor of the status quo, speaks volumes.

[Fugus]

I'll give you the opportunity to condemn both Republicans and Democrats for gerrymandering. Each time I give this opportunity, the nonpartisan drape falls off and the truth gives way.

Again with your disingenuous responses, when I said banning from ALL sides, that means both Democrat and Republican. I condemn the Republicans for blocking the bill that kept it legal, I condemn both parties proportional to their offenses in doing it while also taking into account the REASONS why they are doing it.

Hint: Both sides aren't doing it evenly and one side is mainly doing in direct response to the other one.

By comparison, your selective outrage has been noted. I will gladly ban both sides from doing it simultaneously.

1)You have no issues with the Republican's gerrymandering the hell out of North Carolina, Georgia and others.
2)You have no issues with the Supreme Court refusing to actually do their jobs and rule it illegal as it is quite literally depriving citizens of their representation.
3)You have no issues with the Republican's (Along with Manchin and what's her cunt) blocking the bills that would outlaw it at that level.
4)You only have issues when the Democrats are starting to play the same game in response to it.

Must say, you really enjoy your pigeon food.

[DarkTZeratul]

Since when are Democrats prevented from doing the same? They do the same AND are benefitted this cycle in places like New York and California. At your level, you're affirming that you only dislike it when Republicans do it. You neither mention nor touch the expected D gains from gerrymandering.

Yes, Democrats have benefitted from gerrymandering. Maryland is a good example of that. I'll even give you New York, though to a lesser degree. But it's nowhere NEAR to the same degree that Republicans do, and increasingly are. The top ten most gerrymandered states in the country, for example, all heavily favor Republicans.

You're dead wrong about California, though. It's not gerrymandered at all. Redistricting is conducted by a board comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members unaffiliated with either party. It's about as impartial as you could get. That it leans so heavily Democratic is because it has so many Democrats, not because they've manipulated the district lines.

[beanman12345]

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected separate requests from Republicans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to block the use of new congressional maps adopted by state courts for the 2022 election cycle, allowing the court-drawn voting lines to stay in place.

That's interesting. That will definitely benefit Democrats.

This plus New York and Illinois, I'm no longer completely certain GQP will regain the house. I'm still fairly certain they will cause of all the bs they're doing, just not completely certain.

[Edge-]

Republicans: BAN RUSSIAN OIL!

Biden: *bans Russian oil*

Republicans: HOW COULD BRANDON MAKE GAS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE?!?!?!?!?!?

Fuckin absolutely dishonest clownshow.

[Shadowferal]

Republicans: BAN RUSSIAN OIL!
Biden: *bans Russian oil*
Republicans: HOW COULD BRANDON MAKE GAS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE?!?!?!?!?!?
Fuckin absolutely dishonest clownshow.

Has it been eleven years since Newt

Gingrich was weeks away from announcing his run for president. In what appeared to be a no-win political and geopolitical situation, the longtime Republican leader sought to weaken the man he wanted to replace. He demanded that Obama implement a no-fly zone, and he then dared Obama to forcibly remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, stating, "If they [the Obama administration] want to, they can get rid of [him]."

The following day, Obama ordered air strikes against Gaddafi, and two days after that, a U.S. led coalition instituted a no-fly zone.

Two days after that, Gingrich blasted Obama again — this time for implementing the very policies Gingrich endorsed, stating — without irony — that “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qadhafi."

In presidential politics, "other ways" is code for "Thank god I'm not in charge."

[Draco-Onis]

Glad to hear it. Surprising they actually did the right thing on this given their current track record of intentionally fucking up for ideological gain at the expense of the law, the constitution and the nation.

Will be nice to have North Carolina actually have a slightly representative government for a change.

Sadly no, this is a case of the reich wing supreme court giving us a bit of sugar before the bitter pill. If you hear the opinions it's clear the conservative judges ruled that way because of technicality but they are now very open to the idea that states are the sole arbiter of maps and that courts should stay out of it. When another case comes up with less difficulties and further from the election prepare for the gut punch.

Their next ruling on the topic is going to stop local courts from redrawing maps even when they are clearly racist and unconstitutional.

[Fugus]

Sadly no, this is a case of the reich wing supreme court giving us a bit of sugar before the bitter pill. If you hear the opinions it's clear the conservative judges ruled that way because of technicality but they are now very open to the idea that states are the sole arbiter of maps and that courts should stay out of it. When another case comes up with less difficulties and further from the election prepare for the gut punch.

Their next ruling on the topic is going to stop local courts from redrawing maps even when they are clearly racist and unconstitutional.

What I was thinking after the other guys response. They have to realize that the moment they do, they also set the DNC on course to do the same and the demographics are less and less on their sides to the point that once they have the Democratic leaning areas do the same, their lead will be gone regardless.

As it stands, their lead right now requires them to gerrymander the hell out of stuff while the DNC largely sit on their hands. Part of the reason why we have Dang here complaining about their tactics being adopted.

They are struggling to hold onto power now and they are making sure that when they lose it, they already set the groundwork to ensure that it will be a tidal wave and if they keep pushing their luck trying to screw the people over given the current level of upheaval it will continue to get worse to the point it gets violent at which point they won't win that conflict either due to the difference in shear numbers, the difference in education, and the fact that, despite what they want to think, they aren't the only ones with guns in this nation, most liberals either like them too or are just indifferent and the fact that you can own 25+ rifles but you still only have 2 hands and 10 fingers.

Edit: As it stands, I hope the DNC lead grows enough for stuff like HR1 to go and they actually start pushing for expanding to court till the point it actually represents the will of the people while passing laws that require a certain level of ethics from its members.

Also, still waiting on the DNC to remove Kavanaugh as they already have all they need to to remove him now legally with him committing perjury on live TV, let alone them actually doing a proper background check into him.

But the DNC can't do that because, while they pretend to be strong, they try to be weak to try and lose as much as they can it seems. Like they aren't there to be an option, just an illusion of one that prevents real alternatives from getting into power.

[tehdang]

This is the same argument as the, "We shouldn't pass this common sense law because criminals will just ignore it!" argument.

That you don't even seem to want to try to improve the system, in favor of the status quo, speaks volumes.

I don't see the proposed improvements as improvements at all. The removal of this from the legitimate political process is no guarantee that hidden bias and nonpartisan commissions is even an improvement, much less replacement with a worse system.

Again with your disingenuous responses, when I said banning from ALL sides, that means both Democrat and Republican. I condemn the Republicans for blocking the bill that kept it legal, I condemn both parties proportional to their offenses in doing it while also taking into account the REASONS why they are doing it.

I love standing corrected.

Hint: Both sides aren't doing it evenly and one side is mainly doing in direct response to the other one.

Well, it's a start. Condemning both sides and then saying one side is super duper extra more to blame is the opening step. Game theoretical, both sides are incentivized to make the best play for power, including the side that wants a propaganda victory for "at least we tried to do something to fix it." As a practical matter, you have to go back to the literal 1700s to play the whole "who is directly responding to whom," so tell me which side is the anti-federalists today?

By comparison, your selective outrage has been noted. I will gladly ban both sides from doing it simultaneously.

1)You have no issues with the Republican's gerrymandering the hell out of North Carolina, Georgia and others.
2)You have no issues with the Supreme Court refusing to actually do their jobs and rule it illegal as it is quite literally depriving citizens of their representation.
3)You have no issues with the Republican's (Along with Manchin and what's her cunt) blocking the bills that would outlaw it at that level.
4)You only have issues when the Democrats are starting to play the same game in response to it.

Must say, you really enjoy your pigeon food.

I love the hustle with three disingenuous framings of the issue, while preparing to cast the pigeon food on someone else. My friend, you're sitting gorging on the stuff! There's a lot of projection going on here.

Yes, wanting it in the political process means respecting the political consequences. The Supreme Court does do its job, read some of the opinions sometimes. They state how and why it's a state matter. They state compliance with laws regarding racial gerrymandering. See their opinion regarding a stay in Alabama if you want to learn more.

Calling her "whats her cunt" on international women's day is a take I suppose. "Blocking the bills" ... it would literally take a constitutional amendment. I have zilcho problem blocking an unconstitutional federalization of state elections.

I just said I had no problems with the Democrats doing it. Try reading my post again. The issue is when they act like massive hypocrites when they spend an election gaining from gerrymandering, proving the replacement systems are just as bad, and act like it's only the Republicans that do it.

Yes, Democrats have benefitted from gerrymandering. Maryland is a good example of that. I'll even give you New York, though to a lesser degree. But it's nowhere NEAR to the same degree that Republicans do, and increasingly are. The top ten most gerrymandered states in the country, for example, all heavily favor Republicans.

You're dead wrong about California, though. It's not gerrymandered at all. Redistricting is conducted by a board comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members unaffiliated with either party. It's about as impartial as you could get. That it leans so heavily Democratic is because it has so many Democrats, not because they've manipulated the district lines.

Gee whiz, it's a board that comes up with a system that locks in 44 safe Democratic seats compared to 5 safe Republicans, to put Republicans into 15% of seats lean-R in a state with 34% R in state congressional turnout (WSJ). Kinda cool how you fix gerrymandering by gerrymandering districts by other means. Almost like nobody is truly nonpartisan/unaffiliated when it comes to predilections. In fact, it would be rather tough to squeeze more Democratic seats from a proper gerrymander, considering how successful they've been with a closeted gerrymander.

I'm well aware that Republicans own more state legislatures than Democrats. Of course there will be more gerrymandered states favoring Republicans, including at the top level. (Incidentally, the Democrats might want to craft a policy platform that's more attractive in more states.)

[Edge-]

I don't see the proposed improvements as improvements at all. The removal of this from the legitimate political process is no guarantee that hidden bias and nonpartisan commissions is even an improvement, much less replacement with a worse system.

So...literally what I posted. "We shouldn't have more laws because criminals won't follow them." is the same argument you're making here.

Which indicates you're absolutely, 100% fine with partisan gerrymandering denying people representation. All while making the dishonest "both sides" argument that ignores that Republicans have spent the past decade+ aggressively attempting to gerrymander and Democrats have only just started to respond in kind.

[Draco-Onis]

What I was thinking after the other guys response. They have to realize that the moment they do, they also set the DNC on course to do the same and the demographics are less and less on their sides to the point that once they have the Democratic leaning areas do the same, their lead will be gone regardless.

As it stands, their lead right now requires them to gerrymander the hell out of stuff while the DNC largely sit on their hands. Part of the reason why we have Dang here complaining about their tactics being adopted.

They are struggling to hold onto power now and they are making sure that when they lose it, they already set the groundwork to ensure that it will be a tidal wave and if they keep pushing their luck trying to screw the people over given the current level of upheaval it will continue to get worse to the point it gets violent at which point they won't win that conflict either due to the difference in shear numbers, the difference in education, and the fact that, despite what they want to think, they aren't the only ones with guns in this nation, most liberals either like them too or are just indifferent and the fact that you can own 25+ rifles but you still only have 2 hands and 10 fingers.

Edit: As it stands, I hope the DNC lead grows enough for stuff like HR1 to go and they actually start pushing for expanding to court till the point it actually represents the will of the people while passing laws that require a certain level of ethics from its members.

Also, still waiting on the DNC to remove Kavanaugh as they already have all they need to to remove him now legally with him committing perjury on live TV, let alone them actually doing a proper background check into him.

But the DNC can't do that because, while they pretend to be strong, they try to be weak to try and lose as much as they can it seems. Like they aren't there to be an option, just an illusion of one that prevents real alternatives from getting into power.

The DNC aren't going to change the supreme court Biden made that pretty clear when he put in a joke committee comprised of people praised by the federalist society. The DNC wants to keep the status quo that much is clear however it's getting harder and harder for them to pretend to be a choice while the GOP goes even more extreme. There is some hope however the fact that only Sinema and Manchin are publicly against everything while there are plenty of them that feel the same way makes me believe that they at least fear the progressive base somewhat.

[Fugus]

The DNC aren't going to change the supreme court Biden made that pretty clear when he put in a joke committee comprised of people praised by the federalist society. The DNC wants to keep the status quo that much is clear however it's getting harder and harder for them to pretend to be a choice while the GOP goes even more extreme. There is some hope however the fact that only Sinema and Manchin are publicly against everything while there are plenty of them that feel the same way makes me believe that they at least fear the progressive base somewhat.

With the Democrats only have 2 flip, it isn't really much of a sign, its just enough to ensure they lose with a slight margin of error if one of them needs to put on a show. The more they had flip, the more their show falls apart and it looks intentional.

The last thing they want is a super majority of Democrats elected in where they can't play that show anymore. They try their best to lose on most things it seems like. They will intentionally be weak, intentionally allow the Republicans to control the messaging into the worst possible ways and intentionally try and give away power the moment they get it.

From the look of things, their only job feels like to act as a counter to the FAR right in the Republican party and do just enough to keep the ship from sinking but not to actually fix it. Outside of that, their job is just to prevent anyone actually willing to try from getting elected and prevent them from getting power if they do. Which is why the only time they have shown any real initiative is when AOC was elected to prevent more like her from getting in.

Part of me honestly feels that Elizabeth Warren complicit in it too given the last election, when the Democrats didn't dare do anything to put their fingers on the scale after the Clinton fiasco, she ran against the one person most like her and had the best chance at the start. In that election, it was like her main job was to poach votes from Sanders to keep him out. Then, when it looked like she was getting ahead and might actually stand a chance herself, she had to do something to stop it and started to waffle on healthcare (One of the key issues) to lose enough support to ensure that didn't happen either. Couldn't let Sanders win, but couldn't get enough ahead that potentially Sanders could bow out and back her.